Hello Francis, Francis Dupont wrote:
> I agree but I have a concern to get this in an unclear spec, > i.e., as a network manager, I'd not like to get request to put > silly RA timing because it is written somewhere. We certainly don't want an unclear specification. And, if a network manager needs to support mobile nodes on any local domains, that network manager needs in many circumstances to have the information that running more frequent advertisements is advisable. Can you suggest a way to make the specification more clear? > That said, I do think this is a pretty poor > substitute for L2 information which probably > should be making its way up the driver. > > => 100% agree It is well known for many years that using layer-2 information makes for better movement detection. However, when that option is not available, our experience and that of many others shows that the faster beaconing is effective and can be applied without any surprises. There have been numerous papers published about this, which led to the appropriate specification for Mobile IPv4. The situation for Mobile IPv6 is not any different. Regards, Charlie P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
